Christianity and gay marriage

[afleitch]

I've never heard a convincing argument against denying gays the right to marry (and I've had them spat at me for about 15 years now) Once again I defer to the Quakers;

'Surely it is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge it by
its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as
heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse.'

[afleitch]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

[afleitch]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

[afleitch]

Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

How is 2004 treating you?

I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?

Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.

Maybe from a practical perspective you're right. Nevertheless, in my heart, I remain opposed to gay marriage, and there's nothing that can be done to shift that basic unease.

Maybe if you get to know the life of a married gay couple from meeting, to settling down, to nursing each other through illness and through into death you might change your mind. If you still judge their commitment by their sexuality rather that it's inner worth then you have quite a cold heart.

[afleitch]

Anyway, Anglican (hence ostensibly Reformed and Catholic at the same time, but voted Protestant); strongly in favor of civil same-sex marriage; in favor of religious same-sex marriage but would like to see a better quality of theological argumentation for it.

Hmm. You've never voiced that caveat before. I hope that give a few years you'll not have argued yourself into opposing it.

[afleitch]

Why do you need a theological argument?  "The church should treat all human beings with dignity, respect, and equality," should be sufficient.  Who cares how that line of thinking descends through the centuries?

My feelings exactly. Sometimes things don't need to be viewed through a theological lens; they are what they are. If you see two men or two women who are everything to each other you don't have to peel it back and analyse it's worth, morality or integrity. It doesn't need to be complicated.

[afleitch]

I think afleitch means that some things are just morally neutral.  Gay marriage proponents aren't arguing that gay marriage should be legal because it's moral, but simply because it isn't immoral, at least in an objective sense.

Objective by what standard?  And how is that standard any less subjective than a traditional Old Testament based standard of morality?  Objective is one of those buzzwords one really needs to be careful about using.

It’s entirely neutral. Given what we understand about human sexuality it has to be neutral. If marriage as an institution remained closed off to people because at one time those people were deemed to be ‘different’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ even though we now understand differently, then interracial marriage would still be prohibited. At a time when ideas of racial superiority or even ideas that races should not mix were prevalent then it made perfect sense. Of course now we understand racial theory is junk science. Deep rooted same sex attraction is part of humanity. The same bonds between couples exist and have the same value. People may still balk at that as they balk at women’s equality or a black man being President.

Fighting marriage as a ‘theological’ issue on both sides seems as alien to me as Saudi Arabia having a theological debate about women driving cars. Why? Because it’s not a battle ‘everyone else’ is having. People who are gay, or who have gay friends, colleagues or family members and are accepting of that tend not to view them getting married to the person they are committed to as a theological issue; they just see it for what it is. Liberal Christians shouldn’t feel the need to engage opponents in obtuse theological debate over an issue that those outside of the debate seem to be coming round to in their own way and without the need for theological ‘guidance’ anymore than they need to have a theologically engage with those peddling creationism.

[afleitch]

So at the very least there needs to be a theological discussion of how to write a gender-neutral marriage liturgy, which really isn't the sort of question that can be answered just by looking at the broader culture).

I don't disagree, but with same sex marriage (and in many denominations this is also true of the status of women in both vocational and lay positions) it's not really that complex a discussion to have; various denominations have got there and in 'getting there' haven't broken down as a result. The real problem is that the discussion is just postponed, not considered or outright rejected for very apparent and often disturbing reasons (which have little to do with same sex marriage at all). That is why, particularly in European nations with a history of an established church, there has been such strong opposition from the churches to same sex marriage on the basis that it requires them to confront same sex marriage as a reality; as a thing that is happening and which people might want to happen in certain religious settings. Churches don't like their hand being 'forced' on this issue. The Episcopalians in Scotland, mostly of the liberal wing and fairly honest about there intentions at most times announced that had to oppose the law change here, even if it merited private support, on the basis that there were doctinally unable to support it as the discussion in the Anglican Communion hadn't quite got there.

The problem for the Christian faiths in the western world in particular is that their continued opposition or 'wait and see' attitude to all LGBT matters which ten or fifteen years ago would have elicited a soft negative or even indifferent response from the public now elicits much stronger negative feelings. They are not too different from the sea change in attitudes to race a generation or two ago and have taken even me by surpise. Many churches are still a generation behind. If the secular public are ahead of churches on this and other related matters then continued religious association has quite a shaky future.